The New Europe

“Europe and America must stand united


THE real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the USA. Today they are under greater threat than ever.
The attacks of 11 September showed just how far terrorists — the enemies of our common values — are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defence of these principles, the governments and people of the United States and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

We in Europe have a relationship with the United States which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and far-sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the United States we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime’s persistent attempts to threaten world security.

In today’s world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognised by the United Nations. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the UN route and our support for the Security Council, at the Prague Nato Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein’s last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the UN weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions is continuing.

Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq’s current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

José María Aznar, Spain
José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
Václav Havel, Czech Republic
Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
Leszek Miller, Poland
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

If I read this correctly, then these European countries are saying that the UN Resolution 1441 is enough to justify war - because there was no mention of another resolution needed for war, or a plea for time for the inspectors to complete their job.

Hah! This is hilarious! So much for the Franco-German led united European opposition to U.S. war plans. I almost missed this letter, had it not been for an AP piece about it.”

“*sigh* html is for adults dammit.”

“Now this I like. A clear, easy to understand statement made by true leaders.

Sums it all up nicely, I think.”

“Darn near as bad as my "Jersey" Boo Boo. LOL”

“Great letter, and well said, IMHO. I've recopied it below, so it's easier to read.


"Europe and America must stand united


THE real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the USA. Today they are under greater threat than ever.
The attacks of 11 September showed just how far terrorists — the enemies of our common values — are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defence of these principles, the governments and people of the United States and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

We in Europe have a relationship with the United States which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and far-sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the United States we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime’s persistent attempts to threaten world security.

In today’s world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognised by the United Nations. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the UN route and our support for the Security Council, at the Prague Nato Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein’s last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the UN weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions is continuing.

Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq’s current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

José María Aznar, Spain
José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
Václav Havel, Czech Republic
Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
Leszek Miller, Poland
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark”

“.......the problem is, they always remain the old Europe.”

“The new old world.

I find the idea that freedom and rule of law is solely a european/american value as ridiculous, however.

THE real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the USA.

Let's not forget that our country was forged as a response to tyranny from Europe. As for our human rights values coming from europe in this context - we had the American Indians to slaughter and africans to enslave as a shining example of what mother europe taught us.

It really comes down to who is the bigger bully. The US is the big kid on the block. Europe can rationalize it any way they want to, but they are getting behind the power, not behind the ideas of freedom, democracy and human rights.”

“Let's not forget that our country was forged as a response to tyranny from Europe. As for our human rights values coming from europe in this context - we had the American Indians to slaughter and africans to enslave as a shining example of what mother europe taught us

Let's also not forget that America freed Europe from its own savagery in 2 world wars, rebuilt our enemies' countries, and instilled "freedom, democracy, and human rights" in their governance. America contained communist totalitarianism, is currently containing Islamofascism, and to this day stabilizes global geopolitics (regardless of your opinion on the Iraq war). America has repeatedly come to the aid of its allies when no direct threat existed to the U.S. (e.g. France/Vietnam). Americans enjoy top-tier freedom, liberty and human rights. America is also painfully aware of its mistakes (slavery/native americans/sexism/etc), and continues to actively ameliorate the consequences centuries later.

What am I leaving out?”

“You're leaving out the context of my statement:

It really comes down to who is the bigger bully. The US is the big kid on the block. Europe can rationalize it any way they want to, but they are getting behind the power, not behind the ideas of freedom, democracy and human rights.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the statement, if not the sentiment. Europe, again, is falling in line behind the US, not because of any humanitarian or other ideals, but because we hold the power and they know it.

The question they are not asking in this letter is "Is the US, despite whatever else they have or have not done in the past, doing the right thing now? Should we be behind them?"

I guess that question is left to us as US citizens, and the letter above sounds a whole lot like the call to patriotism that is prevalent in the US today.

It is not right just because the US says it is, whatever our track record and in whatever light you want to look at it.”

“Europe is so jealous of America”

“Europe, again, is falling in line behind the US, not because of any humanitarian or other ideals, but because we hold the power and they know it.

Well, that's true in part that the U.S.'s power may be a pull, but it leaves out European "push" factors: namely Paris. I think these European states that are rebelling against Parisian Contrarianism are turned off of Paris' dominance of the EU. The way I see it, Paris' dominance is now its downfall. Parisian-style Euro-socialism pervades the continent, but it can't compete with American-style capitalism. Paris can't put together any meaningful military power without American technology and personnel. And Paris has been forced to partner with unsavory states to counter American power: China, Iran, Iraq, et al.

No, I think that as Paris' power wanes and they grow more desperate, the other European countries are asserting their own voices. For example, Denmark, Ireland, the U.K., and Spain are all vocal regarding their preference for American military power over European military power. And when the Baltic states join the EU along with Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic (I think?), Paris will have even less influence over their ambient Pro-U.S. tendencies.

What I'm saying is that I don't think that the Europeans are choose-up-siders so much as they are asserting what they wanted from the beginning of this affair. And I think they're taking advantage of the situation to slap Paris around a bit.”

“Are you talking popular opinion?

While I might agree that France's dominance over the EU is in decline (for a number of reasons), I'm not really sure that is has a real bearing on how America's foreign policies, especially those against Iraq, are viewed. The charter of the UN, however, should.

In the world of international politics, truth comes down to what can be proven. Have we proven to the rest of the UN that Iraq should be invaded to remove the Saddamites (cute huh)? If not, is the UN living up to its charter, or is it really a US puppet show?

I think the push you're talking about amounts to political and military weakness. Mot of Europe doesn't want to be on the wrong side of the power. Going back to the article above, there is no real mention of Europe's true reason for falling line. I firmly believe that if one looks for those reasons, human rights, individual freedoms and rule of law are going to fall pretty far down the list.”

“oh boy, oh boy...don't even want to think about all those discussions about politics everytime on the phone with my german friends... I so totally disagree with them, we always get mad at each other.

you still like me all right?? (even if I am german) :(”

“My wife is German, Gemini. She has been in the states for 7 years. we've been married for 3.

So I forgive you, if no one else does :)”

“I'm not really sure that it has a real bearing on how America's foreign policies, especially those against Iraq, are viewed.

Well we can agree to disagree on this, but that's not really what I said. What I meant to try to get across is I think these sentiments are latent and are now being brought to the surface, in the absence of meaningful French arm-twisting. I'm not suggesting a sea change in sentiment.

In the world of international politics, truth comes down to what can be proven. Have we proven to the rest of the UN that Iraq should be invaded to remove the Saddamites (cute huh)? If not, is the UN living up to its charter, or is it really a US puppet show?

Who cares? Personally, I don't care about UN approval. Perceiving the UN as any kind of legitimate agency is naive. It is little more than a collection of tyrants voting to give each other a pass (and condemn Israel and the US, of course). It has no moral or real validity whatsoever.

Most of Europe doesn't want to be on the wrong side of the power

I think this is pretty cynical. It's ridiculous to think any European nation is worried about the U.S. projecting its power on them. France may have to worry about oil, as will Russia. But no European country is quivering in the shadow of American power. That Europeans want to side with the U.S. is probably more indicative of their admiration for our success and desire to plug into it. After all, Eurosocialism is a failed system, and the Europeans are letting France know it.”

“I think the push you're talking about amounts to political and military weakness

I think the economic factor is more of a push than the other two. In the last 10 years or so, I don't think the EU has surpassed U.S. economic growth once. And the entire EU GDP is less than half that of the U.S.”

“If I want serious political discussion, I'll look at the BP.com site.

You guys get back to your shenanigans and your backpacking talk, right now!”

“Hey, I might check that forum out. Thanks Peej.”

“Nevermind, I hate that stone-age format.”

“Okay, Mutt... Grrr.

Who cares? Personally, I don't care about UN approval. Perceiving the UN as any kind of legitimate agency is naive. It is little more than a collection of tyrants voting to give each other a pass (and condemn Israel and the US, of course). It has no moral or real validity whatsoever

You and our president both, apparently. Listen, if we act without the UN's nod, what kind of problems does it cause for us? What do we make of the UN in future situations like this? By the way, I misspoke, I should have said the UN security council.

I think this is pretty cynical. It's ridiculous to think any European nation is worried about the U.S. projecting its power on them.

Oh? We're not just a military power. We can bring financial considerations to bear as well. We can and do manipulate the WTO in same manner we manipulate the UN. Look at our lumber tariffs on Canadian lumber and our steel tariffs on European steel. Both illegal according to WTO policies, but we won't be called on them.

This is some of the power the US brings to bear. It's better for other countries to step aside and let us do what we want.”

“Listen, if we act without the UN's nod, what kind of problems does it cause for us?

None that I'm aware of. The UN has passed numerous resolutions since 1991, and Sadam has flouted them all. The UN Security Council has done nothing of substance about it! The UN was created to maintain peace and stability, and the security council was supposed to be its teeth. When that council is nothing more than an instrument of obfuscation and obstruction wielded against the U.S., it loses all formal legitmacy as well as fails its original mission.

Back in September when Bush made the case against Iraq before the UN, that should have been it. Either authorize U.S. action, enforce the existing resolutions, or come up with a viable alternative. Well, the UN proved itself to be incapable of that, and as a result, irrelevant. Whatever you think of Bush's stance on Iraq, no intellectually honest person can deny the possible benefits a victory may have on national and world security, and America has the unilateral right to protect itself.


What do we make of the UN in future situations like this?

Abandon it. Leave it for the petty tyrants of the world.

We can bring financial considerations to bear as well.

True, but ultimately the U.S. wants expanded trade. Punishing Europe would be self-defeating in that respect, and would benefit no one in the long run.”

“Read this article. It seems like all of Europe is acting like the french in on way or another... Less so now, but it's more about political jockeying than it is about right and wrong or humnitarian ideals.

Link”

“it's more about political jockeying than it is about right and wrong or humnitarian ideals

I agree that it's political jockeying, but if Europe was truly morally opposed, they wouldn't be lining up behind the U.S. now, and they wouldn't let fear of the "hyperpower" bearing down on them force them to support a morally indefensible course of action. Thus, "it is about right and wrong or humanitarian ideals".”

“Where's the rest of TT's political pundits? Shoot, this must be a real boring conversation!”

“interesting article btw.”

“Yeah, I'm getting burnt on the issue, myself :)

In conclusion, I'd say that if it were a matter of the US blazing a trail, Europe would have been behind us a little earlier, and we couldd have proven the need for it sooner. As it stands, it's just about gravitating to the money and might.

The ideals the espouse are a ruse to hide that fact.

I'm off for the day, see ya!”

“I've noticed that most people here on TT have been strangely quiet (relatively speaking) about issues surrounding Iraq. I thought for sure my Guess-a-date-for-when-we-bomb-Iraq thread was going to stir up the pot, but it was a dud.

Very interesting....”

“how about......not soon enough”

“My answer as well, sir Jello Fog.”

“you still like me all right?? (even if I am german) :("
Gemini
02:02:21 PM
01/31/03

As long as you don't turn out to be half French. (just joking)”

“Going back to the article above, there is no real mention of Europe's true reason for falling line. I firmly believe that if one looks for those reasons, human rights, individual freedoms and rule of law are going to fall pretty far down the list."
Phaedrus


phaeddy ... read it again dood. seriously. it says plain and clear their reason. he is not complying. why give him more chances to not comply? why is 12 years of noncompliancece not enough? why do you think the world should be in charge of america's national security decisions? when have the french, for whom america sacrificed 500,000 lives to liberate from evil, ever supported anything we have done? why should we listen to germany's prime minister when he has an approval rating in the 20's in his own country? your thinking is convoluted to say the least. the whole dam continent would be speaking german if it wasn't for us, geesh man, that was only 50 years ago. you and nelson mandella should go hang in cuba with fidel.....”

“Artex, I've noticed a dearth of insight into foreign policy around here too. At leaset Phaedrus had an articulate argument. Why haven't you chimed in?”

“hen have the french, for whom america sacrificed 500,000 lives to liberate from evil, ever supported anything we have done?

Well Strat, you remember a little conflict called the Suez War? And how the active opposition of the U.S. resulted in the British and French going home humiliated? That may have something to do with it.

The British learned never to be on the wrong side of Washington. The French learned never to be dependent on Washington.”

“He's not interested in an answer. He just wants to make more tiresome socialist/communist references to try to look clever.

As far as the actual need for a military strike against Iraq, aren't we supposed to see evidence this week, or something?”

“no, i'd forgotten about that. i was talking more recently, like the last 15 years....it doesn't matter. my point still stands...we have already seen evidence, we don't need anyones aproval to handle our national security.

why don't you think we should invade iraq phaed? i'd like to hear your reasoning. all cleverness aside, you ARE siding with the socialist/communist on this issue......”

“It never gets old with you, does it? You have any idea what middle ground is? Ever heard of an issue that WASN'T black and white?

I'm not debating anything else with you, strat. Futility is a lesson hard (but well) learned.”

“By the way, since we weren't even talking about financial government, the whole socialist thing is IDIOTIC.

You are fixated on an idea that you pull into every conversation like a monkey that can't let go of a peanut to free his hand.

Give it a rest.”

“phaed, i asked you eight questions and you didn't answer one on them. and when it comes to us getting a dirty bomb or a crate of anthrax, no i think there is no middle groung. i am as resonable as the next guy....don't be scared phaed, tell me why you think europe knows best when it comes to our national security.....”

“Mutt - I usually don't like to get into debates about politics. At most, I'll usually briefly state my position, and leave it at that. I'm making a bit of exception in the case of Iraq, but only a bit.”

“i like that arty....


i just can't help myself.


btw phaed, i never mentioned socialism, you did.....dork”

“Does Old Europe Hate New America, Or Just President?
by Will Hutton The New York Observer

It wasn’t only in London, Paris and Berlin that hundreds of thousands took to the streets on Saturday, Feb. 15, in protest against war in Iraq—there were plenty of protesters on the streets of American cities. To characterize "old Europe" as peopled wholly by cheese-eating surrender monkeys and the U.S.A. by a warrior race uniformly and bravely behind military action is to traduce reality. As George W. Bush’s ratings fall to new lows, the conservatives around him—and the right-wing American commentariat—might reflect that many of the attitudes they detest as "old Europe" are alive and well in America.

Europeans—to the extent anyone on this continent of 370 million conforms to the generic stereotype—are baffled and extraordinarily anxious at the rhetoric now emanating from the world’s most powerful country. Mockery of President Bush’s linguistic faux pas has given way to the realization that he and the people round him are very different from the American elites we’ve become used to. Europeans expect America to live up to the high standards it sets for itself—and, at key moments over the last century, it has done so. Now there’s a realization that Mr. Bush is not of the same ilk; he is potentially very dangerous both for America and the world.

These apprehensions may be mocked and derided by the American administration and its take-no-prisoners outriders, who dominate the American media and national conversation, but that does not mean that our fears are not genuine—or well-founded. The majority on the European street is extremely wary about the doctrine of pre-emptive, unilateral intervention and the willingness to disregard international law and the U.N. process if it produces the "wrong" results; but that doesn’t make us anti-American. Rather, we want America to be the better Europe that generations of European immigrants set out to make it, believing in the promise of a new continent with its Enlightenment Constitution and passionate commitment to opportunity, liberty and an equal chance.

America has been the victim of a horrendous crime, and the barbarians of radical Islam, we know, will again use terror against the U.S. (and against targets in Europe too, don’t forget) if they can. They must be rooted out, and the deep causes of the crime addressed, even as we bring the particular terrorist networks to justice. But this complex task cannot be undertaken if we divide the world into the Manichean simplicities of George W. Bush: Those who are not for America must necessarily be against America. This is not good enough from the leader of the free world—and it’s certainly not good enough before the evil of the threat we face. We need sophistication, wisdom, the widest coalition possible, legitimacy—and, of course, a willingness to use force if every other avenue has been closed. Instead, we hear the language of pre-emptive war (which was outlawed by the Versailles Treaty of 1919)—and this from the greatest and most admired democratic republic in the world, a country that has always prided itself on its respect for law, at home and abroad. Europeans expect much, much more from America.

This, perhaps, is what Americans do not comprehend very well. Anti-Americanism in Europe does not play well, even in France, where it intrudes into the public discourse more than any other European country. Jacques Chirac is winning support because he’s asserting an idea of an independent France, le hexegon, that occupies an autonomous role in the world and stands for a cluster of values (peace, multilateralism, interdependence)—and taking on America at the same time. But when it comes to other core values—democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights, impartial justice—no leading French politician or opinion leader (except those on the fringes of right and left) is going to position him- or herself as anti-American. And if this is true for France, it’s even more true for the rest of the continent. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has sacked two ministers for making unguarded, off-the-record anti-American remarks; he could not survive politically protecting them in office. Indeed, Mr. Schröder, like Mr. Chirac, is careful to argue that while he’s against pre-emptive action in Iraq until the U.N. process is exhausted—and thus in opposition to Mr. Bush—that does not mean he’s anti-American. Nor, in a fundamental sense, is he.

This is what troubles and infuriates Europeans. Whereas Mr. Schröder sacks ministers for making offensive remarks, Mr. Bush indulges his own; Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz or Condoleezza Rice can say anything that comes into their heads—some of it downright untrue and offensive—and there’s no penalty. This is, of course, the prerogative of the powerful throughout the ages, but Americans should not be surprised if their interlocutors bridle and chafe. The wonder is that there’s not more resentment.

Some of the claims made by leading American conservative commentators against Europe (I’m thinking especially of Robert Kagan and Charles Krauthammer)—statements that appear to reflect the views of conservative Washington—are so vicious that if they were not obviously detached from reality, there would be some real anti-Americanism. For example, the idea that America now wears the badge of Mars (the willingness to use military force, to assert itself with manly vigor and bear loss of life like other great powers in the past)—in contrast to the feminine loss of will in Europe—strikes Europeans as an astonishing case of memory loss and saturation in fantasy. Is this the same country that has a collective fainting fit at the sight of one body bag? That has been careful to fight its recent wars from 50,000 feet up? Whose tourists have so little sense of fortitude that mass cancellations follow after even the slightest hint of danger? American swagger, Europeans suspect, is the swagger of the schoolyard bully, and no more sturdy. The scuttle of Mogadishu or fighting for Kosovo and Afghanistan from the air more nearly define American military ambition—and if the going gets rough in Iraq, Europeans expect little sustained resolve or willingness to bear loss of life. Which is why it’s so important that if action begins, it’s launched from a platform of impeccable legitimacy—why the weapons inspectors must continue and why the U.N. process must be exhausted before the Security Council authorizes war.

The French and British have both demonstrated willingness to bear loss in the national interest. It’s that same tradition that makes both populations—and other Europeans who know from experience war’s senselessness and pain—so very wary. Until the ascendancy of today’s conservatives, America historically shared that caution: Vietnam produced the same embedded wariness, and for very good reason. That tradition, judging by the opinion polls and the growing anti-war protests, is not entirely dead—and my hunch is that the Kagans, Krauthammers, Perles, Wolfowitzes, Cheneys and Rumsfelds will find that their own country will display many of the same sentiments as "old Europe" if they engage in this war against terror in the way they plan.

Which shouldn’t be a surprise. The best of America is the best of Europe; the best of Europe is the best of America. The idea that these two pillars of the West can be fundamentally at loggerheads for long is nonsense. Rather, as I argue in my forthcoming book A Declaration of Interdependence, American conservatives have declared independence from the Western liberal tradition. Europeans are already protesting the consequences, but as that protest spreads to the U.S., the truth will emerge: It’s not Europeans and liberal Americans who are the isolated, dangerous eccentrics who menace peace, order and the rule of international law. It’s Mr. Bush’s Washington.”

“Washington Post described Bush's attitude as "hubris."”

“Yes, yes.......the kooks are in the Whitehouse!”

“And on Trail Talk.”